United State v. Saltzman’s Empirical Analysis
537 F.3d 353 · 2008
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act)
Relies on North Carolina v. Pearce · Bordenkircher v. Hayes · Blackledge v. Perry · United States v. Goodwin · Parker v. North Carolina
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, a defendant may prove actual vindictiveness by presenting objective evidence that the prosecutor’s actions were designed to punish a defendant for asserting his legal rights. Second, in certain circumstances, a defendant may show sufficient facts to give rise to a presumption of vindictiveness.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jordan v. Epps
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.